Greetings, and a very warm welcome to *Regulator*. If you happened to arrive here by following a shared link and you are curious to dive more deeply into the work we produce, it may be worth noting that *The Verge* is currently offering a particularly attractive subscription promotion: just four dollars for a single month or thirty‑five dollars for a full year of unrestricted access to every article on the site. In practical terms, this means you could not only immerse yourself in nuanced explorations of complex concepts such as political horseshoe theory in action, but also enjoy our minute‑by‑minute reporting on the unveiling of Apple’s forthcoming iPhone 17.
The past week in Washington, D.C., was dominated by the intellectual energy of two major conferences that became the talk of the entire policy community. Which of these gatherings you found most thrilling—or most infuriating—depended heavily on your ideological orientation. For conservatives and the populist right, the action was centered at the Westin in downtown DC, the venue for the *National Conservatism Conference* (NatCon). The event drew numerous former Trump administration officials along with their allies, who called fervently for punishing artificial intelligence developers and for determining rigid criteria about who deserves to be considered “sufficiently American.” On the opposite side of the spectrum, at the Salamander Hotel overlooking the Potomac waterfront, was the *Abundance Conference*. This gathering adopted a markedly different tone, filled with buoyant optimism and techno‑utopian enthusiasm, premised on the conviction that a flourishing future could be achieved if only governments would cease imposing burdensome regulations.
Most participants, as well as most members of the press corps, opted to immerse themselves in just one of these two highly contrasted events. For instance, I concentrated my efforts at NatCon, where I discovered what could best be described as the germination of a new MAGA‑inspired Butlerian crusade against Silicon Valley and Big Tech. A small number of journalists, however, displayed either extraordinary determination or perhaps an appetite for punishment by attempting to cover both conferences. Among this rare breed was Gaby Del Valle, one of *The Verge*’s policy reporters, who attended the last day of NatCon before shifting her attention to Abundance as part of a separate project. Although technically on leave to write a book, she explained her decision to journey to Washington in characteristically spirited fashion: she had come “for the love of the game.”
While taking a brief respite together to recharge our phones in a hotel lobby, Gaby shared a theory that elegantly connected the two events despite their obvious ideological clash. Her suggestion was that although Abundance and NatCon appeared diametrically opposed, both were grappling with an identical fundamental question. In her words, Abundance essentially framed the dilemma as: *We have a growing population, so how can we provide sufficiently for everyone?* Meanwhile, NatCon’s framing was more exclusionary: *We control limited resources, which must be reserved exclusively for Americans—so who truly qualifies as American?* This symmetry was hard to ignore.
We made a pact to reconvene after recovering from the intellectual overload, and I can assure you that the resulting analysis you are reading here represents one of the very few political dispatches that earnestly integrates insights from both sides. Before diving further into interpretations, let me highlight some of *The Verge*’s most recent stories that resonate with these larger debates. Among them is Josh Dzieza’s thoughtful essay examining the resilience of Wikipedia, which he argues derives paradoxically from the project’s very plainness. There is also Sal Khan’s cautiously optimistic conversation about the future of education in the age of artificial intelligence, presented in dialogue with Hank Green on *Decoder*. Meanwhile, Lauren Feiner provides sobering evidence that what some described as a renaissance in antitrust enforcement against Big Tech may already be fading, with courts signaling their reluctance to dismantle giants such as Google.
Returning to the conferences themselves, Gaby and I discussed reactions from other individuals who attempted the grueling double‑header of NatCon followed immediately by Abundance. One particularly witty observation came from Jerusalem Demsas, formerly of *The Atlantic* and now the author of the newsletter *The Argument*. She cleverly labeled NatCon the *Scarcity Conference*, a remark that captured both the mood of attendees and the constricted vision they were advocating. Gaby described this quip as the funniest yet most accurate comment she overheard during the entire week.
But what, exactly, is Abundance? As Gaby explained to me, its proponents advance the sweeping philosophy that society requires “more of everything”—more housing, more opportunity, more innovation—and that existing regulatory frameworks are among the chief obstacles standing in the way of achieving such expansion. The intellectual roots of the movement lie partly in the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) housing advocacy community, which argues passionately that outdated zoning laws and restrictive local ordinances, often supported by NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) sentiment, block desperately needed new construction. A vivid example frequently mentioned involves so‑called single‑stair regulations in residential buildings, which, according to advocates, impede the construction of denser housing models even when safety could still be maintained through alternative architectural solutions.
Abundance thinkers, such as Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson in their book, go so far as to imagine a visionary future where miraculous technologies deliver life‑saving medicines—sometimes whimsically characterized as “star medicine”—flown directly to ordinary citizens by autonomous drones. The liberal defense of such aspirations is rooted in the historical observation that earlier waves of unregulated capitalism produced environmental devastation, exploitative labor conditions, and rampant industrial pollution. Regulatory regimes were designed to correct those abuses and safeguard the public. Yet in the eyes of many in the Abundance movement, these regulatory frameworks have ossified into rigid systems that now obstruct health, safety, and prosperity rather than advancing them.
What made the conference particularly notable was the wide range of political orientations represented. While NatCon projected a clear identity as a far‑right gathering, Abundance attracted a coalition that included center‑left reformists, moderate conservatives, libertarian‑leaning innovators, and even some who openly identified as socialists. Despite this diversity, a unifying concern was the high cost of housing, the rising cost of living, and the search for policy instruments that could tangibly improve citizens’ lives. Immigration policy debates revealed telling contrasts: whereas NatCon speakers underscored themes of exclusion and national limitation, Abundance’s only immigration panel focused narrowly on reforming the high‑skilled H‑1B visa system to both reduce abuse and expand access to talent.
The broader comparison between the two events ultimately reveals how both are struggling with the same underlying question: how should America manage its resources and envision its future in an era defined by technological upheaval, rapid change, and polarized politics? At NatCon, the prevailing narrative emphasized threat and defense—America is full, outsiders are unwelcome, and artificial intelligence as well as cultural liberalism must be tightly constrained. At Abundance, the gaze tilted toward expansion and problem‑solving—given that people are already here, how can society ensure they flourish with ample housing, affordable family life, and perhaps even futuristic innovations like drone‑delivered medicine?
In stylistic terms, one could summarize the contrast succinctly yet pointedly: NatCon offered “all vibes and no policy,” presenting fiery rhetoric and cultural identity appeals without much substantive governance detail. Abundance, conversely, could be portrayed as “all policy and no vibes,” offering detailed white‑paper blueprints, statistical models, and technical proposals but struggling to generate emotive resonance with the broader public. The organizers themselves seem aware of this communicative weakness and grappled openly with how to translate wonkish policy ambitions into tangible messages that voters could both comprehend and rally behind.
Ultimately, what we are witnessing in both these conferences is a glimpse into the shifting tectonics of American politics. On one side stands a faction determined to define and defend a narrow conception of national identity, fueled by suspicion of globalization and hostility toward technological elites. On the other side stands a coalition aspiring to build a broadly shared future of prosperity, albeit one wresting itself away from entrenched bureaucratic constraints. Whether these movements can mature into cohesive platforms with genuine appeal remains to be seen. For now, they exist as vivid illustrations of how political theory, cultural identity, regulatory debate, and technological aspiration are intertwined in America’s ongoing experiment with democracy.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/regulator-newsletter/774489/natcon-abundance-conference-recap
